cfg_get_scenario_params

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what authorization is needed, or any side effects. It only states it gets parameters, which is minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and to the point. It front-loads the purpose and lists parameters efficiently. However, it sacrifices detail for brevity, which is acceptable for a simple tool but could be more descriptive.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the large number of sibling cfg tools, the description does not explain how this tool fits into the workflow. It lacks context about output format (though output schema exists) and does not mention related tools like cfg_list_scenarios for listing scenario names.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has one parameter with no schema description (coverage 0%). The description adds an example ('load_balancer') and labels it as scenario name. This provides some context but does not explain how to find valid scenario names or that the scenario must exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'required and optional parameters for a configuration scenario'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cfg_list_scenarios (which lists scenarios) and cfg_list_modules (which lists modules).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cfg_edit or cfg_generate. No mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description does not help the agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.